News Stories

[Triple_R]

Well, this is why it's necessary to have unions and various laws on the books pertaining to worker's rights. Thankfully, most 1st world nations have that today, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, this is really a separate issue from the spying one, given current circumstances for most (if not all) of us here on this board.

[serenade_beta]

A new day for 2ch
-It seems the guy who posted the credit card info might get arrested. No creditable source.

-Thanks to the leak, Kami-sama no Memochou's author admits to criticizing and trolling other authors. According to a list on 2ch, authors including Akira (日日日, Mushi to Medama, Sasami-san, Kyouran) and Hashimoto Tsumugu (橋本紡, Hanbun no Tsuki)

-One person who made death threats to someone and then to the person's lawyer and was responsible for the massive banning on 2ch was tracked down in real life, including house photo and all

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Companies can't put you in prison or take your personal property, but the government can. As a US federal judge once said, anyone and everyone are guilty of breaking some law at some point in their lives... if you really want to convict someone (anyone) of a crime, no matter how law-abiding they think they have been, you can.

By comparison, what's the worst that Google would do to me? More appropriately, what's the worst that they could do that wouldn't give me and other customers grounds to file a lawsuit against them? You can sue the government, but good luck with that. Simply suing the government also won't return confiscated property or immediately get you out of prison.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

What makes you think that governments are any more trustworthy than corporations are? Just because corporations are motivated by profit? That actually makes corporations more trustworthy than governments, at least in a sense.

Your answers are symptomatic of what I've always considered the greatest flaw in American society. As a country, you look to your government to solve national problems. And rightly so, because they are the leaders you vote for. Yet, at the same time, you make it incredibly difficult for any of them to make things work. You place all kinds of obstacles in their way in the name of checks and balances, because you fundamentally assume that none of the authorities can ever be trusted.

Yet your government passes the laws that govern not just you, but also itself. These laws are enshrined in your Constitution and the mechanics of governance are open for all to see. And amendments to these laws are subject to a long-drawn process of debate and consultation before any of them can be passed. Your leaders are subject to regular elections and you have every chance to boot them out of office if you feel they do not live up to expectations. And if they prove corrupt, you have well-established systems to punish them with the full weight of the law.

In contrast, most corporations are run like mini-monarchies with minimal, if any, accountability to customers. The services they provide are circumscribed by terms and conditions they can change at a whim. At best, they'd inform you of the intricacies. At worst, the terms are buried in pages of fine print which companies cynically expect you won't read but would sign anyway. And when things go wrong, you'd find that, oops, you can't hold them responsible, because you'd already waived away their liabilities.

Even better, their top executives have to gall to turn every tax-paying American into total suckers, requiring the government to bail out their companies debts, with generous bonuses to themselves to boot. That's pretty nifty accountability indeed.

Even so, you remain happy to trust corporations which you'd have to go to great lengths to hold accountable. And at the same time you'd continue to suspect every move of your government, even though it is required by law to be accountable to its voters.

It's completely topsy-turvy. But, hey, that's America.

With regard to the fuss over the tracking of phone logs — just the logs, mind you, not the conversations, which your President has explicitly declared his government does not intrude upon — it comes down to a choice between security and privacy.

The government, through the profiles of individuals it builds through the phone logs, may be alerted to potentially troubling behaviour that requires further investigation. Now, this is in the aftermath of 9/11, when your national security agencies were all publicly condemned for not raising the flags earlier on possible threats, potentially stopping the disaster before it could occur. They're simply trying to do a job you all said they should have done better, and still they get hammered for it. It's a no-win situation!

And it wasn't even a question about legality, because the present administration has already gone much further than the previous administration to ensure the surveillance is legal.

I'll just quote what this American law professor had to say:

"We are a little naïve to think this information is going to remain private. Anything that goes out on the Internet, whether it be e-mail or Facebook or social media, people should assume that that information is going to be in the hands of third parties and could eventually end up in the hands of the government.

"When you send e-mail, it goes to the Internet service provider, or if you send out communications through Facebook or other social media, those communications have to go somewhere and then get transmitted to the people you want to send them to. A good argument can be made that you don't have any constitutional protection with respect to those communications, because that information is no longer private. That's US constitutional law that many people don't understand.

So, the question, it seems to me, is this: If you're so concerned about the government spying on you, why in the first place put out so much information about yourself through private corporations, when they are under no legal obligation to protect your privacy?

If you're willing to surrender such information to corporations — information that falls into the public domain and have no privacy protection — then I'd argue you have no right to expect privacy in kind.

In the end, all you have to go on is trust. And to me, it's tragic that you'd trust a corporation more than your government to respect your privacy.

Ultimately, what you're highlighting is the yawning gap between our cultural and societal expectations of government. I happen to live in a country where the government and the civil service are held in generally high esteem. Given America's recent history, I can well understand why you have so little faith in the integrity of your leaders.

Still, such understanding doesn't make it any less sad, the state in which your politics are trapped.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Your answers are symptomatic of what I've always considered the greatest flaw in American society.

I'm Canadian myself, so let's please dispense with the idea that this is purely an American concern.

The practical reasons behind wanting to limit the powers of government go well beyond any one national government or culture. History has numerous examples of authoritarian governments, throughout various nations, that have mistreated some or all of their citizens, often without warning. Some of these governments were in fact elected. Democracy alone is not an absolute fail-safe against this. For this reason, we should want governments that are limited in the degree that they can intrude upon the normal, daily lives of people.

Personally, I think that the US has greatly overreacted to 9/11, and has failed to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As a country, you look to your government to solve national problems. And rightly so, because they are the leaders you vote for. Yet, at the same time, you make it incredibly difficult for any of them to make things work.

A government can help its citizens without having to spy on them. So I think your argument is greatly overstated here.

You place all kinds of obstacles in their way in the name of checks and balances, because you fundamentally assume that none of the authorities can ever be trusted.

Sure authorities can sometimes be trusted. When it comes to disaster relief in the wake of a major natural disaster, for example, I would be inclined to trust authorities. But when it comes to dealing with sensitive personal information about citizens? No, I think there's considerable potential here for abuse.

Yet your government passes the laws that govern not just you, but also itself.

This would be a good argument if governments steadfastly adhered to its own laws. But often they do not. Since you're focusing on America, it should be noted that there are plenty of cases over the past few decades of American governments (including both Republican and Democrat Administrations) doing things that, shall we say, are "extra-legal". Often they engage in activities that are against international law.

Your leaders are subject to regular elections and you have every chance to boot them out of office if you feel they do not live up to expectations.

The USA PATRIOT ACT was signed into law by former President George W. Bush, a Republican.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act, which is a four-year extension of three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT, including the controversial wiretapping that was one of the main bones of contention for civil libertarians.

The Democrats and the Republicans are, of course, the only viable political parties in America as of this writing.

So, again, democracy alone (i.e. regular elections) is not a surefire safeguard against overly intrusive governments that don't respect the privacy of citizens or their civil liberties. The issue itself has to be addressed if people want to maintain that privacy and those liberties.

And if they prove corrupt, you have well-established systems to punish them with the full weight of the law.

LOL! Sorry, but this is honestly hilarious in a dark comedy sort of way. Has an American President ever went to jail? I'm pretty sure a Canadian Prime Minister never has.

In contrast, most corporations are run like mini-monarchies with minimal, if any, accountability to customers.

I'm sure most here are well-aware of the faults of corporations. It doesn't change what they're able to do to you, though. Which is a lot less than what the government can.

The services they provide are circumscribed by terms and conditions they can change at a whim.

The USA PATRIOT ACT changed things considerably itself.

At best, they'd inform you of the intricacies. At worst, the terms are buried in pages of fine print which companies cynically expect you won't read but would sign anyway.

And much legislation is voluminous in length and often aren't even read by the politicians that vote on it. So no offense, I'm not really seeing this supposed contrast here.

And when things go wrong, you'd find that, oops, you can't hold them responsible, because you'd already waived away their liabilities.

And when things go wrong, the legislation is often so lengthy and detailed that nobody is truly able to fix it.

Even better, their top executives have to gall to turn every tax-paying American into total suckers, requiring the government to bail out their companies debts, with generous bonuses to themselves to boot.

You're right. That looks bad on top executives and corporations... and the government that bailed them out in such a fashion.

Even so, you remain happy to trust corporations which you'd have to go to great lengths to hold accountable.

You'd also have to go to great lengths to truly hold governments accountable.

With regard to the fuss over the tracking of phone logs — just the logs, mind you, not the conversations, which your President has explicitly declared his government does not intrude upon —

Yes, and we all know politicians never lie.

Look, it's fine to like Obama, and it's fine to prefer him to the alternative, but let's not be naive here. He's no less a politician than any other US President.

it comes down to a choice between security and privacy.

It's possible to have both to reasonable degrees.

Still, such understanding doesn't make it any less sad, the state in which your politics are trapped.

Or maybe, TRL, some of us simply value privacy more than you do and don't think that governments should be in the business of monitoring virtually everything its citizenry does.

[ganbaru]

Donald Trump investment school sued by NY attorney general
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97O01U20130825

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Or maybe, TRL, some of us simply value privacy more than you do and don't think that governments should be in the business of monitoring virtually everything its citizenry does.

The problem is as TRL stated it: You've already given up your privacy for convenience in the world of the internet. Why should you be expecting something you have already given away?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The problem is as TRL stated it: You've already given up your privacy for convenience in the world of the internet. Why should you be expecting something you have already given away?

No, I haven't already given that away, so you and TRL are making an invalid argument in this case.

There's a reason why I never got into Facebook or Twitter much. There's a reason why the vast majority of us here use handles instead of our real names.

Anime Suki respects the privacy of its members by not requiring us to share our real names, physical addresses, or telephone numbers to the rest of the AS membership.

If Anime Suki can respect this sort of privacy then so to can the government.

[Seitsuki]

Normally I'd simply stay out of things like this but I have to add in this case the comparison of an anime forum and the government seems a bit of a stretch even to me.

[Archon_Wing]

lololol. This is what happens when you assume on the internet no matter how good your senses are. But indeed, Triple R, despite the fact that he cares about privacy.... IN AMERICA! is indeed, not American.

Anyhow, I don't want to trample on people too much. It's certainly true that the American stance towards corporation (especially considering them individuals) is certainly a very sick and disgusting way of looking at things. Still, viewing them as separate threats due to collaboration between both makes comparisons generally moot.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Normally I'd simply stay out of things like this but I have to add in this case the comparison of an anime forum and the government seems a bit of a stretch even to me.

My point is that simply using the internet doesn't mean you surrender all rights to privacy, or internet sites themselves would obviously not seek to maintain something you've already supposedly surrendered. Nobody's privacy is completely surrendered just because they use the internet. Now, if you use social media, with your real name and a picture of yourself attached, then it's basically the same as saying something in a very public place where anybody can hear you and track what you said back to you. Of course there's no privacy there. But Facebook and Twitter are not the whole of the internet. Many people maintain a level of anonymity on the internet. Pretty much all of us here do, of course.


In any event, do you agree with the USA PATRIOT ACT? Do you agree with wiretapping? Do you think the government has any business listening in on the phone conversations of law-abiding citizens? Do you think the government should be monitoring the e-mails of law-abiding citizens?

My answer to these questions is "no".

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

lololol. This is what happens when you assume on the internet no matter how good your senses are. But indeed, Triple R, despite the fact that he cares about privacy.... IN AMERICA! is indeed, not American.

I'm like Bandit Keith in that regard.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

No, I haven't already given that away, so you and TRL are making an invalid argument in this case.

So you have not once used a credit card, paid a bill, or registered for a service online?

[maplehurry]

Your leaders are subject to regular elections and you have every chance to boot them out of office if you feel they do not live up to expectations.

I don't know about Singapore, I can imagine them being more trustworthy than American politicians. But, outside of social issues, there's not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. I mean look, Biden's going all hawkish on Syria just today.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

I don't know about Singapore, I can imagine them being more trustworthy than American politicians.

Well, they have a different kind of problem even a non-politically incline person as myself could notice...>_>

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

So you have not once used a credit card, paid a bill, or registered for a service online?

That University application of my was a trap after all!

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

So you have not once used a credit card, paid a bill, or registered for a service online?

What does that have to do with the government? If I, say, purchase WoW and sign up for its monthly gaming service, then what does that have to do with the government? If I have online banking, then what does that have to do with the government?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

What does that have to do with the government? If I, say, purchase WoW and sign up for its monthly gaming service, then what does that have to do with the government? If I have online banking, then what does that have to do with the government?

Because despite your expectations, such information are known by quite a few people once uploaded into the network. In a world where your Health Card is enough to find everything connected to you including your credit card number, you think the government or any interested party would not be able to find things about you which you think should be private?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Because despite your expectations, such information are known by quite a few people once uploaded into the network. In a world where your Health Card is enough to find everything connected to you including your credit card number, you think the government or any interested party would not be able to find things about you which you think should be private?

I've never used a Health Card online.

In any event, we're talking about what the government should do, not what they can do. Someone having online banking or playing WoW or making an online University application is not giving implied consent to the government to spy on them.

[SeijiSensei]

Syrian Electronic Army Hijacks New York Times Website

I wondered what was wrong with the Times site earlier today; now we know the reason.

I'm not sure I believe Westin's comment about the risks posed to NY Times readers from this event. This was an attack against the Domain Name System, so that nytimes.com was redirected to the SEA site in Russia. That's a lot different from breaking into the site and grabbing its database. I suppose someone who tried to subscribe might have handed over credit card information to the Syrians, but I don't think it affected even someone like me who posts fairly regularly in the Comments sections.

Comments still seem to be offline though the site is back up. I am a bit disturbed that the IP address I get for www.nytimes.com, 170.149.172.130, does not have "reverse" resolution set up. Asking for the host name associated with that address brings up a "not found" result. I never checked to see whether the Times had correct forward and reverse resolution configured before the hack, so perhaps they have just never bothered. That's pretty poor Internet engineering on their part if true.

I guess we were "at risk," to use Westin's term, of reading bogus material instead of the legitimate content, but I'd bet the English compositional skills of these guys don't measure up to the level of NYT reporters.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Your answers are symptomatic of what I've always considered the greatest flaw in American society.
...
Yet your government passes the laws that govern not just you, but also itself. These laws are enshrined in your Constitution and the mechanics of governance are open for all to see. And amendments to these laws are subject to a long-drawn process of debate and consultation before any of them can be passed. Your leaders are subject to regular elections and you have every chance to boot them out of office if you feel they do not live up to expectations. And if they prove corrupt, you have well-established systems to punish them with the full weight of the law.

There are a few reasons why the American system is arguably broken and in need of mending. I'd guess that many other democracies are prone to similar problems, but I don't know enough about them to say.

First, the concept that elections can keep politics pure. Ideally this would happen, but American politics have an issue here. First, because of the "winner takes all" approach, electoral races are always between two candidates. Voting for a "third party" candidate is said to be equivalent to "throwing your vote away," and there are compelling arguments for and against that idea. If you aren't a part of the largest voting group, then you aren't contributing to a victory. All it takes is one group to have even a slim majority and they win, hence there is a motivation to vote for the candidate who is most likely to win and who is the closest to your views and values, in that order of priority. Adopting a system like they have in Australia (rankings instead of a single vote) would fix this.

Another issue with elections is the amount of money required, which also ties in with voter turnout. Election turnout in America is shamefully poor, which could be remedied by making voting mandatory (again, like Australia). It's also very expensive to run a campaign. How can an average working American compete against a career politician? Said politician has the time to campaign, and they usually have the financial backing of a major political party (which is another kick that keeps "third party" candidates down). Americans need to be motivated to vote and they usually don't research issues for themselves; while it isn't a pure constant, money spent on advertising and events tends to buy votes.

Given these critical issues with elections, we run into another problem. What happens when the government doesn't obey the laws that chain it down? The NSA activities have already been ruled unconstitutional by courts, and even before then the government was arguably breaking the law with some of its activities (the Patriot Act had some unconstitutional clauses, such as suspension of due process). What can you do in this scenario?

--------------
Before I continue on, I'd also like to state that there's a false dichotomy in your post. You're writing as if there's distrust for the government and trust for corporations, and seem to be arguing that it should be the reverse. The distrust applies to both, not just speaking for myself but for most Americans (based on all the people I've spoken with over recent years and the opinions I've heard). My points are only meant to explain why there's more concern about the government compared with corporations.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In contrast, most corporations are run like mini-monarchies with minimal, if any, accountability to customers. The services they provide are circumscribed by terms and conditions they can change at a whim. At best, they'd inform you of the intricacies. At worst, the terms are buried in pages of fine print which companies cynically expect you won't read but would sign anyway. And when things go wrong, you'd find that, oops, you can't hold them responsible, because you'd already waived away their liabilities.

Companies can write what ever terms they want, but the courts don't always rule in favor of them when it comes to legal battles. I'd agree if you want to say that most customers don't have the financial resources to challenge a company, or that courts might rule in favor of the company most of the time, but it's an important thing to note. The company's terms are ultimately still subject to the scrutiny of society.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

With regard to the fuss over the tracking of phone logs — just the logs, mind you, not the conversations, which your President has explicitly declared his government does not intrude upon — it comes down to a choice between security and privacy.

First, you're assuming that the President is telling the truth. I voted for him twice and as such it pains me to say this, but I'm skeptical. The government has already had to backtrack three or four times on what it claimed were the limits of its program as The Guardian has slowly been releasing information.

Second, even if Obama is telling the truth as far as he knows, who's to say that other abuses can't occur? The oversight committees have already admitted that they can't effectively monitor the NSA, and recent evidence already indicates that the NSA overstepped its legal bounds on numerous occasions. There's no effective oversight, but an awful lot of power that a connected individual could utilize. That's a very problematic scenario.

As for a choice between security and privacy, that's another false dichotomy. 9/11 might as well be a freak incident in the blanket of American history. We are not Israel, facing regular rocket attacks (or suicide bombers, if you look back at Israel in the 1990's). Our crime and assault rates have been decreasing quite steadily with time. I don't mean to say that it isn't a tragedy when even one life is lost, but I don't think that we need to turn the country upside-down to try and prevent every meaningless death. It's an impossible goal.

America is the safest it has ever been (despite what media reports might lead one to believe), and all of that was accomplished without this program in place. Why, then, is this program and its associated intrusions into privacy so important?

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If you're willing to surrender such information to corporations — information that falls into the public domain and have no privacy protection — then I'd argue you have no right to expect privacy in kind.

In the end, all you have to go on is trust. And to me, it's tragic that you'd trust a corporation more than your government to respect your privacy.

Here's another point of contention. You're talking about trusting information to "a corporation." Many corporations have information about me. Some have inaccurate information, some have only a little bit of information, others have more information... but no one company has all of the information. My bank doesn't know that I am Ledgem of AnimeSuki, nor does it know what websites I've visited. My phone company might know who I've called and how much time I spent on the phone with them, but it doesn't know my relation to those people. My email provider might know that, if they were to snoop on my emails (which are unencrypted), but they wouldn't know of anything beyond the emails.

Do you know what entity could piece all of that information together? The government. I suppose that corporations could band together and pool what data they had in order to do something similar, but why would they? What's in it for them to do so? Think about the RIAA demanding customer information from ISPs. That resulted in lawsuits and court battles between companies. Companies don't share this information just for the hell of it. But the government is different in that it can force companies to provide that information. I think in my previous post I've already addressed the point of what could the government do with the information vs. what would a corporation most likely do, so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say, the government has the interest and the massive resources necessary to gather all of that information, whereas corporations do not.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

The problem is as TRL stated it: You've already given up your privacy for convenience in the world of the internet. Why should you be expecting something you have already given away?

When I am online, my only physical identifier that ties me to the real world is my IP address. If I log on from a public internet area then my IP address and the associated ISP are not even tied to me; it's just an indicator of where I physically was (and even then, that assumes I'm not using a proxy). If we had national ID's that were required for logging on to the internet then I would agree that we gave up privacy in order to log in, but that isn't the case.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I happen to live in a country where the government and the civil service are held in generally high esteem.

*spit-take* *koff* *koff* *hack* *koff* *hack* *koff* *koff*

Ahem. Sorry, choked on my drink, didn't meant to interrupt. Carry on, my good people.

[Xellos-_^]

BEIJING — Police in China say a woman tricked a 6-year-old boy into going into a field, and then removed his eyeballs. The boy’s brutal ordeal happened Saturday in a rural area of Linfen city in Shanxi province, the city’s police bureau said in a statement.
A police officer confirmed Wednesday that the boy’s eyeballs had been removed. The officer, who only gave his surname, Liu, said he couldn’t speculate on a motive because the investigation was continuing. “We are sparing no efforts trying to solve this case,” he added.
Liu said the two eyeballs were found at the scene, and that the corneas hadn’t been removed. State media previously had raised the possibility that the boy’s corneas were taken for sale because of a donor shortage in China.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...897_story.html

only appropriate punishment is to gouge out the eyeball of every person involve in this, including the kidnapper, the doctor and the person made the purchase.